Spider MCP Server

spider_links

Extract all links from a webpage to discover URLs for further processing. Returns a list of links without fetching content, enabling fast site mapping.

Instructions

Extract all links from a page without fetching their content. Fast way to discover URLs on a site for further processing.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "spider_links"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	URL to extract links from
`limit`	No	Max links to return
`request`	No	Request type: http (fast), chrome (JS rendering), smart (auto-detect). Default: smart
`return_format`	No	Output format. Default: raw

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.2Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'without fetching their content' and 'fast', but fails to disclose other important behaviors such as error handling, rate limits, auth requirements, or output format. The description is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler words, front-loaded with key information. Efficient and clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with 4 parameters well-documented in schema. However, no output schema exists and the description does not explain the return value (list of URLs). This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema; it restates the purpose but does not clarify defaults or behavior of specific parameters like 'request' or 'return_format'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Extract', the resource 'links from a page', and specifies 'without fetching their content'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like spider_scrape and spider_crawl which fetch content or follow links.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use this tool: when you want to discover URLs without fetching content. It implies it's for initial discovery before further processing. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or conditions when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.